But one might also say you are both halfway to the country AND the city while avoiding the worst aspects of both (depending on your point of view of course).
I think the OP has a point, folks arent generally IMO “fleeing” to the suburbs out of economic desperation. Its because many WANT to live there, given their economic limitations.
I think much of it is snobbery of a sort from all other sides.
The really rich live in nice penthouses in the big city with lots of hired help. Good for them. The other half rich live way out in the boonies in nice estates with help. Good for them too.
The poor, unforunate, unlucky, unwanted, and unmotivated live in the poor parts of town, but can’t escape. They envy the middle class who actually can escape, so they belittle them.
Then there are the “sophisticated” middle class folks that choose to live in town. Obviously, their choice MUST be more informed than the heathens who fleed, so again the burbs get a bum rap.
As a practical matter, it’s pretty clear that criticism of the suburbs is primarily an aesthetic choice by certain people. billfish678 is very, very right here.
This is not the first time the whole thing has happened; the left had a very similar attitude back in the day. First they bemoaned the move from the virtuous farm to the vile city. Now they bemaon the move from the virtuous city to the vile suburb. And, ironically, for largely the same reasons. In the end, the reasons are irrelevant; there is an extremely strong and semi-unconscious ideology that promotes a certain environment, and they often can’t even imagine otherwise. Likewise, many city-dwelling leftists simply can’t comprehend how the policies they put into place destroyed the city’s attractiveness for so many people.
If the government were to actually remove all the subsidies and incentives that people get for living in suburbs, there would be a howl of protest from suburban dwellers. If anything, suburbanites are forcing their ideology on the rest of us by making the government subsidize them and structure the rules to favor them.
For me, it has all the disadvantages of both the country and city with only a few exceptions (proximity of emergency services, for one.)
Crime? There are crime-ridden suburbs and safe urban areas.
Location? It’s just as convenient to get to a corner store or mall in all the more-rural-than-suburb places I’ve lived at as it is in the suburbs: you have to drive your car somewhere regardless (unless you are lucky to live in a suburb close enough to a pub or a 7/11.) And again, unless you live next to it, you still have to drive anywhere of significance in both places(i.e. entertainment of any sort.)
Aesthetics? Too crowded to be country-beautiful, without the potential of the multi-use melanges of small town downtowns or big city bazaars.
Human pollution? Neither suburbs nor the city offer enough room to “breathe”.
I don’t look down on residents of suburbs, I am three-quarters of one, after all (I consider my condo in Orlando to be half-suburban as it is on a major thoroughfare, the other side of which being the part of Orlando that starts to get crowded with smaller streets and businesses). I just look down on suburbs. The reason they are occupied is that the negatives are outweighed by the price (cheaper to convert previous rural areas into all-alike, jam-packed housing than to build skyscrapers or spacious rural homesteads.)
Every type of living has its pros and cons. I’m living in an urban area now and I hate it. Pollution, crime, and traffic are but a few reasons why I can’t wait to get back the suburbs. Parking in major downtown areas sucks, as does not being able to walk a block without being accosted for spare money. Sure, living in the suburbs has its advantages and disadvantages too, but let’s not act like urban living is the end-all be-all to civilization. Not everyone likes being cooped up in high-rise apartments and hearing sirens blaring at all hours of the night.
The idea that suburbs aren’t sustainable is a crock of crap. They’ve worked well for decades and will continue to work, as long a better model than the ones we have now is employed and realized. (see point 5)
Living in the city isn’t for everyone. Big cities over all are crowded, dirty, dangerous and expensive. To be honest though, that’s why I live in one, because aside from all those things, it has culture, activities, restaurants, music and a verve you can’t find and will never recreate in the suburbs.
This is America, people live where they want to live and do what they want to do because they can afford to do it. We’re only realizing just now how out of control we were and that yes, we can and must dial it back, first and foremost by not building mcmansion-esque temples to our greed and driving hummers and suburbans (HA!) with single digit fuel economy.
The idea of a suburb-less future is asinine.
The case for New Urbanism is stronger than ever. Just as we’re finding there’s room enough for the many in the center of the politcal spectrum, likewise there is a middle ground for living. Not everything needs to be in a sky-scraper-skyline city, and not everything needs to be in pleasant valley.
I live in a high rise just outside of the Loop in Chicago. a place that sells parking spots for $50,000 :rolleyes:. I’m renting and will never, if I can help it, own a house or real estate that I live in again, and unless things hit the skids for me, never again in the burbs. The city makes grand sense for me and mine. I couldn’t walk or cab to 5 star restaurants, plays, concerts or events from the suburb I used to live in. I couldn’t enjoy a stroll on the lakefront or a bike ride to Navy Pier from my old house. The city is where it’s at for me, but if I was presented with an option to live in a place that adhered to the principles of New Urbanism, well, I’d give that some serious consideration.
And the married people are getting incentives and subsidies from the government that single people aren’t. So?
There aren’t really any more incentives to live in the 'burbs, really, it amounts to buying and owning real estate. Just so happens that real estate is vastly more affordable in the 'burbs (unless you know something I don’t about these incentives/subsidies)
Remember in “LA Story” when Steve Martin is overheard saying, “No, I live in the valley.” And the valet parking attendants laugh and snicker at him?
Also in “Bowling For Columbine” where the little southern bullet (name??) explains that minorities move in and white folk head to the suburbs to fence themselves in and lock their doors. (paraphrasing)
I’ve always preferred suburbs for LIVING instead of city. I’m in the suburb of Valley Village (Hi, Sara Silverman!!!) and I chose to buy here over West Hollywood. I’ll hang in WeHo, but at night, suburbs are way more peaceful and with less crime.
It is much different these days, though. Growing up in Mid-west, we lived in Illinois suburbs where there were only two or three schools, one shopping center, maybe two movie theatres. Decades pass, population grows, and her in the VV suburb, I’m within maybe two miles of four shopping centers, access to all major highways, lots of schools, churches, etc. Four miles away, I’ve got two movie theatres with over 12 screens each.
The lack of diversity in suburbs is the one thing I’ve always called a downside though.
What’s really wrong with the neighborhood bum who sings any song for a nickel? Long as they’re quiet after 10 pm. New Urbanism may not be far off.
Here’s something I’ve never quite gotten about this whole “sustainability” business. Not that I’ve done any exhaustive economic theory analysis on it, or could even do it if I wanted to.
Lets say you live in the burbs. It cost you XYZ to live in certain sized house with a yard/pool/whatever. Invariably, it appears to me (mostly from watching non fictional cable tv shows dealing with real estate) that it cost you WAY more than XYZ to live in some cramped city apartment that doesnt even have those extras. Which is why folks move to burbs in the first place it would seem.
Okay, you say…but you can earn so much more living/working in the city so it evens out!
Maybe, maybe not. Not sure on that point.
But here’s the rub, at least in my mind. Doesnt at some level money represent either the actual consumption of physical resources and/or the expenditure of people’s time and labor?
If the dollars in the burbs equal the dollars in the big city and the above is remotely true, isn’t city living even LESS sustainable than burb living?
There is also this bizarre notion that all suburbs are alike. For a board that prides itself on reminding each other that one bad example does not a rule make (i.e., race, gender, political parties) it seems strange for so many to paint suburbs with such a broad brush.
Sure, some suburbs are unsustainable (some urban areas are too though), ugly and boring. Others are vibrant places that have been around for as long as the cities they surround. The suburb I live in is 3 miles from the city, was established before the city proper, the housing stock is mainly from the 1900-1940s, it is easily walkable, has fantastic local stores (shops, restaurants, etc.) as well as a couple major employers. I can walk to work, walk to get groceries or go to a movie. I know my neighbors well and we get together regularly. What’s so bad about that?
Well, to be fair, although I did feel that billfish678’s first three posts here were pretty content-free, the remarks he later posted (in post#21) made a coherent point. A point I disagree with, mind you, but an actual contribution to the debate rather than a mere “satirical” threadshit.
Um, what day was this back in? I have always considered anti-urbanist paeans to the “virtuous farm” as a typical feature of old-fashioned Burkean conservatism: i.e., an attitude characteristic of the right rather than the left. Where and when was this significant group of political liberals/progressives/leftists that you claim were opposed to city living?
I think BrightNShiny means the subsidies for suburban development, as well as things like the home mortgage tax deduction that inflate typical house size:
IOW, suburbs will continue to work—but only if we significantly change the way they work now. How is that different from saying that suburbs as they currently exist are not sustainable?
The original move from the countryside to the city. It was the left/democrat/progessive branch which bemoaned and fumed against it, in the traditional Democrat ideology. We’re talking 19th century, here, but it was the key turning point.
Maybe there’s a false dichotomy running through this whole thread.
The non-suburban choice is not necessarily and exclusively the classical urban downtown (Manhattan, Chicago, San Francisco) .
When I read the anti-suburbia books, I couldn’t tell what the author was living in. However, in this DVD, it seems like many of the folks interviewed are living in a more rural or cooperative neighborhood structure: http://www.amazon.com/End-Suburbia-Depletion-Collapse-American
One option is building outside of downtown but architect them differently for better intermingling of residential + business. Encourage foot traffic instead of driving everywhere. You’re still “away” from the city but instead of dividing up the area with zoning laws putting all the shopping in one part, and the houses in another, you deliberately combine them together. An example is 2 and 3 story neighborhoods where all the commerce and markets are on the 1st floor and people live on the 2nd. Another example is a hub and spoke design.
Another option is to revitalize downtowns with more residential amenities so they aren’t ghost towns at night.
It’s certainly possible that the main debate is between Manhattan vs Suburbanville. But to me, it doesn’t seem productive to restrict it to those 2 choices.
In any case, I don’t people will seriously explore alternatives to traditional suburbs without a society altering catalyst – such as peak oil.
As someone who grew up in a small town and currently live in the suburbs, I can provide evidence for the opposite. I like the suburbs because I have access to all of the great culture in the city but don’t have to put up with the awful traffic, barrage of people, crime, lack of parking, and long cold walks to the train station in the morning. Cities are great and everything, but they’re not for everybody. The same can be said for tiny little towns. Suburbs can be the compromise in-between the two.
Urban, or City folks seem to forget that their whole lifestyle would come crumbling down in days if it was not for the support of suburban folks. And x-urban folks and country people that support the infrastructure of the country and world.
If it wasn’t for the people that live in suburbia, small towns and x-urbia, city folks would be lucky to be able to find a tic-tac for lunch.
Um, what day was this back in? I have always considered anti-urbanist paeans to the “virtuous farm” as a typical feature of old-fashioned Burkean conservatism: i.e., an attitude characteristic of the right rather than the left. Where and when was this significant group of political liberals/progressives/leftists that you claim were opposed to city living?